Bibliographic record
Abstract
We ask a lot from a city: housing, trade, employment, arts, transportation, education, manufacturing and recreation.And then there are also more intangible demands like equity, opportunity, safety and health.These elements are organised, distributed and prioritised based on the cultural values of citizens.The word 'values' is interesting.As a noun in the singular, it refers to worth -but in its plural form, its meaning is tied to ethics and beliefs.The two words are inexorably linked, however, because our values influence what we value, and not only in monetary terms.Beyond exchange value there is use value, cultural value and productive value.But what does this have to do with cities? Values are fundamental to the built environment as a human artefact.This idea is reflected in the theoretical framework of Baukulture or building culture, which recognises that values are interwoven with physical form, and, more specifically, it speaks to the changing nature of shifting cultural processes.As built and designed spaces, cities displace or bury natural landscapes and systems, and the trade-off is increased exchange and productive value for the city and its residents -a bargain reflecting the values of the society involved.And though the subjugation of nature is a familiar historical trajectory for urban centres, this path dependence can be redirected or reimagined to reflect other values.As a structure, the city artefact enables social constructions and community.In her keynote address delivered at the 2022 AMPS conference, Cultures, Communities and Design in Calgary, Canada, Alison Page examined the relationship between location, country and social gathering. 1As an Indigenous designer from Australia, Page spoke about Aboriginal heritage and practices in her native land.She described the connection to the country and how architecture is interwoven with the land, thereby creating place.She also discussed Tubowgule, a traditionally resource-rich point of cultural significance
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".